Talk:List of equipment used by Russian people's militias in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quanities[edit]

Quite alot of the equipment have sources that simply state something like "one or two seen here and there", does it make sense to then specify the quanity like it has been done in lot of the vehicle sections? J.K Nakkila (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the scope of the article, particularly as most of information has been gleaned from WP:BIASED sources from both sides, and the fact that we are not listing equipment used by a huge army (this is regional warfare by separatists), my take is that it would be misleading to avoid numbers of weapons using WP:INLINE citations. To simply present the equipment without qualifying that it is warfare on a small scale using whatever comes to hand would lead to POV assumptions about the scale and nature of the war. The number of heavy artillery pieces is of great significance when we are only aware of extremely small numbers being identified and/or captured. It should be made evident that this is not warfare on the scale of the invasion of Iraq. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why we coulnd't just say the same in the notes without giving specific numbers. When we put specific numbers to the quanities, even when sources do not tell specific numbers, it gives the false impression that its some kind of accurate estimate of numbers of the weapon in question. This is even more true when the editors change the total number based on different sources, as in T-72 section. Couple seen there, some destroyed later, but we can't really tell if the destroyed vechicles were the same as spotted before since the sources do not say so. J.K Nakkila (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do see your point. At the moment, however, I'm stretched across a huge number of articles trying to archive references and translate them before they're lost. I only get to this one from time to time and it's low on my priority list. I'll have to do this in bits and pieces in order to translate the relevant text and add it as an inline quote to the footnotes. Oh, well. I'll put it on my list of longer term projects. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iskander[edit]

Do we have any other sources that in Donbass operates Iskander other than one Azov commander once said so? Does not seem very reliable source. And if it needs to be listed, why could it not be listed as ukrainian claim if there are no other sources of this? (it was marked as such, but this got deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.107.241 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noted and reverted the according to Ukrainian sources additions. As you're not a static IP, I would suggest that you get an account: it's difficult to maintain any collaborative clean ups with dynamic IP addresses, or who edit from different computers or internet connections. You may have noted that I've tagged the entire article as needing better sources considering that I'm having to find where photos have been sourced and try to work out whether they are reliable sources or not. This is in order to avoid WP:TAGBOMBING the article and/or attributing every entry WP:INLINE while I find where the images were sourced; where POV blogs are used as sources; translate the sources; etc.
If you'd like to assist, I'd be extremely grateful if you could find the articles images in the references came from instead of 'Ukrainian claim', 'Russian claim', 'Pro-Russian separatist claim' plus other POV 'claim' disclaimers (please read WP:CLAIM as to why these aren't acceptable). If I find that all of the sources are unreliable, I'll remove poorly sourced and dubious information once I've double-checked the sources in order to find better ones.
In the meantime, I've tagged the Iskander for needing a better source, but don't wish to do so with absolutely every entry. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

This article uses some sources aimed at trying to prove, that all the separatists' equipment was captured exclusively from the Ukrainian forces and didn't come from Russia. For example the Lost Armour site is highly dubious. Apparently, it is maintained by the separatists (or their supporters).

Many of the links are also quoting separatists and come from Russian state-owned news agencies like RIA Novosti. These are biased sources, of course, as Russia denies involvment in the Ukrainian war.

For example, the biased sources never mention of exclusively Russian equipment seen and filmed in use by DPR and LPR forces, like:

All of these items were developed in Russia after Soviet Union break down. All of them are not in service in any of the Ukrainian forces. --Amakuha (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was incorrect about the Lost Armour site. It has two different pages:
The latter indeed lists exclusively Russian equipment which was destroyed in Ukraine, like T-72B tank modifications with "Kontakt-5" armour (namely T-72B3, T-72BA and T-72B mod. 1989). --Amakuha (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. I never tried to "prove that all separatists' equipment was captured exclusively from the Ukrainian forces". Why do you think I added the BPM-97 to the list? All I am trying to do is show the truth, and that includes listing the equipment that was also captured from Ukrainian forces. But people immediately assume that it must be biased, come on now... SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I didn't talk about you. (b) Still, the list (and the amounts) of captured armour needs to be taken with caution. --Amakuha (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent quote regarding the issue:

Such reports of captured "trophy" hardware were common at the time [Summer 2014] and we suspect that many were in fact disinformation, intended to provide plausible deniability to the presence of such weapons in separatist hands, supplied by Russia.

— Pierre Vaux, Catherine A. Fitzpatrick [1]

--Amakuha (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should take it with caution. However, let us not forget that the Ukrainian government has always been hiding its armored losses. In the quote, it says we suspect that many of these trophies were in fact disinformation. What it doesn't mention is the fact that the summer of 2014 was one of the most violent periods of the war. The Ukrainian military lost dozens of armored vehicles with the "southern kettle" next to the border with Russia in July, and the "Ilovaisk kettle" in August. These kettles were barely reported on until recently in Debaltseve. The Ilovaisk kettle exposed an empty and unprotected area in the south, which allowed the rebels to make a counter-offensive towards Novoazovsk. The Ukrainian government tried to cover their losses by creating a media hysteria of a covert Russian invasion, and of course every "reliable" source out there was only reporting on this. These reports of a Russian invasion were backed only by the clear evidence of Russian-made vehicles such as the T-72. No doubt that Russia is supplying the rebels. What should be focused on is the fact that the Ukrainian Chief of Staff, Viktor Muzhenko, recently admitted that they are fighting just separatists, and that there are no regular Russian troops in eastern Ukraine, only Russian volunteers. [2] [3] SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a contradiction here. The August 2014 Russian offensive was covert (just as you wrote), while there are no regular Russian troops. The widely reported scheme on which Russian professional soldiers go to Ukraine is: 1) taking a vacation; 2) or officially quitting the army.[4] (Besides, there are cases when regular Russian soldiers were caught in Ukraine.[5]) --Amakuha (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please avoid turning a constructive discussion about the content of the article into a bit of a soapbox? Any sources we can reasonably deem to be considered reliable, but most likely to be WP:BIASED must be attributed per WP:INTEXT (that is, state who the source is/sources are) so that the reader knows where the information is coming from. Unfortunately, for a list of this type (i.e., not something that is followed by Anglophone English media in detail), the information is going to come from biased sources or it won't exist here at all. What this means is that the onus is on us to be as discriminating as possible as to the sources: meaning blogs (unless by a reputable specialist), forums and self-published sources (except for statements from the separatist official sites) are out. Cheers for the moment! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pantsir-S1[edit]

Hi,

Many people here are probably wondering about the presence of the Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine. Although there are those who claim that multiple sources support such a presence, a closer look at the sources themselves will show that the information is too controversial to be supported by such few sources.

The following sources are used to "support" the "fact" that the Pantsir-S1 is in Ukraine:

  • Armament Research Services (ARES)
  • Jane's International
  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  • Business Insider
  • Bellingcat Vehicles

It appears as if there are at least five sources that support the claim. Since the claim is very controversial, multiple sources must be given for such a claim to stay according to WP:FRINGE. But let's have a closer look.

ARES: Although this is a reliable source, the Armament Research Services themselves explicitly made it clear that they themselves cannot verify this inquiry and only mentions it as a possiblity. There is also a usage of sources like social media and YouTube which are not reliable despite ARES normally being a reliable source.

Jane's International: This is a very reliable source and should never be considered otherwise. In fact, this reliable source explicitly said that "this cannot be independently verified by IHS Jane's".

Foreign and Commonwealth office: This is a reliable source. However, one reliable source isn't enough to keep such an extremely controversial claim.

Business Insider: This source cites the Foreign and Commonwealth office and is therefore not considered an additional source.

Bellingcat Vehicles: It's not clear if this is a reliable source at all. Even if it is, then you have a total of two sources that support the claim of the Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine. This is not the "multiple" needed for a controversial claim.

Khazar (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important side note: This qualifies as an expectional claim since the majority of the mainstream media has not even covered this story, multiple high-quality sources are required. Khazar (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are writing is not entirely true. ARES has recently updated its report about Pantsir-S1 seen in video in Luhansk. It stated:
A video brought to our attention shows a Pantsir-S1 being driven down a highway in Lugansk, Ukraine, a little over a week ago. The location was verified through comparison of landmarks using Yandex maps.
ARES has also uploaded a copy of the original video to YouTube with caption:
A video showing the Pantsir-S1 air defence system on a major road in Lugansk, Ukraine.
(Anyone can indeed verify the claim himself. The location is 48.546240, 39.331236. Direction of movement is South-Eastern. The street can be easily recognized at Yandex Street View).
So ARES has obviously recognized presence of Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine.
Bellingcat Vehicles is a dedicated independent reliable resource about movements of weapons around Russian-Ukrainian border. It verifies all the geolocations through a review process. And it currently has two geolocated sightings of Pantsir-S1 (one in Luhansk and one in Makiivka).
Foreign and Commonwealth Office is another reliable source, which uses the two sources above. It most probably means that the Office verified the evidence and considers it convincing enough to safely make a "controversial" statement, which would likely harm its relationships with Russia (especially if the claim was false).
So we have three reliable independent sources. How many more do you need? --Amakuha (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:Al Khazar I reverted the deletion. I don't think its perfect now but should be still included. Note that videos etc do not really qualify as a source, but IMO there are enough reliable sources (such as posted above) to say at least Pantsir is claimed to be seen withing rebel hands. J.K Nakkila (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, there is no evidence it was in rebel hands. It could have been operated by Russian soldiers. (Which is actually most likely, as Pantsir is a new complex system and training is needed in order to operate it.) --Amakuha (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. YouTube is deemed as an unreliable source and its usage by ARES disqualifies it as a reliable source in this context. Also keep in mind that mentioning a YouTube video does not mean that it recognizes it as true. Jane's International mentioned the pictures as well but did not recognize them as fact and remained skeptical. All in all, you only have two sources to back up the bogus claims. Khazar (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why it's an exceptional claim is the fact that only Russia operates it. You only have two sources supporting these allegations and there is no reason to see Bellingcat as a high quality source. Khazar (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ping User:J.K Nakkila That's in direct violation of WP:V. For an exceptional claim like this, multiple high quality sources are required and only two sources support this. One of them isn't even high quality. Khazar (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar, there are primary sources (YouTube) and there are secondary sources (ARES, Bellingcat, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office). We use only secondaty here. If secondary independent reliable sources, like these three, make a conclusion that Pantsir-S1 was seen in Ukraine in at least two locations, I don't see any reason to not include it in the article.
However, if you know a Wikipedia rule, that says that secondary reliable sources become disqualified as reliable if they use YouTube for making a conclusion, please, point me to such a rule. Otherwise, please, avoid deletion of the information.
Moreover, the facts of sighting Pantsir-S1 in this table indeed has more and better references than most of other items in the table. So if we were to delete Pantsir-S1, we would also need to delete most of this article's content. For example, why would we consider Bellingcat Vehicles unreliable, and still use LostArmour.info, which is massively used in the article? How is LostArmour more reliable than Bellingcat? Both make analysis of images and videos from the conflict area.
Also, I don't see any reason to consider this a fringe theory, as it's widely believed that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists, including Russia's latest equipment such as BPM-97 (at least 10 seen in Ukraine), GAZ Vodnik, BTR-82AM, T-72B3, T-72BA and others, which are listed in the article. --Amakuha (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does citing Foreign and Commonwealth office somehow disqualify a source from being additional source? From WP:V "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources", and here we have these publications covering the claim. Same thing with a source using Youtube, why wouldn't they be qualified to do resarch on that basis? And this thing would be included as a claim as I suggested (claimed to be seen... accoring to Foreign and Commonwealth Office... etc.), you could just as well add Jane's as a source aswell. J.K Nakkila (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Iryna Harpy, I don't feel like the talk above waranted the deletion. Could you clarify here before you delete it? J.K Nakkila (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing the following when I was called away IRL. Explanation below, so please self-revert your re-inclusion:
It's irrelevant how many unreliable sources you list. 50+ unreliable sources are not the equivalent of one RS. Please note that there was an RSN discussion of Bellingcat very recently. While there were reams of equivocation, Bellingcat found no consensus for being reliable and is not used as a reliable source in other article surrounding the Ukrainian crisis. Per Khazar's correct evaluation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I've reverted the entry for lack of anything resembling a reliable source.
As regards the use of YouTube footage, see WP:VIDEOREF: "If using the link as a source to support article content, then you must establish that the uploader and the video meet the standards for a reliable source.". That means that, if it's a self-published source with no secondary source evaluation, it's disqualified as an RS.
I've also reinstated the "reliable sources needed" tag which I'd added in October last year. As already noted, it doesn't matter how many unreliable sources are cited, it's only an op-ed piece which doesn't meet Wikipedia's rigorous criteria. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube links were not used as a reference though, and Bellingcat was only one of the several links provided above. Reliable sources needed I agree with what it comes to Lost Armour though. J.K Nakkila (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, can you, please, explain how does this fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL criteria? 1) It is widely believed, that Russia supplies weapons to separatists, including some of the latest Russian military equipment (see other Russian items in the article). 2) Appearance of Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine was not challenged by anyone, as far as I know. – So how is this WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Why appearance of T-72B3, for example, isn't "exceptional" then?
As was already noted above, Armament Research Services (ARES), which is considered an independent reliable source, recognized the appearance of Pantsir-S1 in Luhansk as "verified" [6]. Moreover, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom named the sightings as the "further proof of Russia's military involvement in the conflict" [7]. (Again, it was not challenged even by Russia.) So there are indeed multiple reliable sources supporting the claim. --Amakuha (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please, note that Bellingcat and Bellingcat Vehicles are two different projects. There was no discussion about the latter one yet. The difference is that Bellingcat allows some room for opinion, while Bellingcat Vehicles just geolocates videos and images through a review process. It's hard to see any bias in that. At least for me. --Amakuha (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How have you established that armamentresearch.com is a reliable source? Secondly, fact that Bellingcat Vehicles is an offshoot of Bellingcat makes it even more spurious as a source (uses public sightings, etc.). I've encountered "Business Insider Australia" before: it's not an established newspaper/journal/publication but a self-promotional business venture. Where is the actual British Foreign Office report? I've seen a twitter pic of something that could be a photoshop mock-up I could do myself. It's been a few days since that was published and, if it were reliably sourced, I have absolutely no doubt it would have hit the reliable sources by now. If it hasn't, then Wikipedia should not be using it. We're WP:NOTNEWS, and we're not WP:RECENTISM.
You're relying on unreliable sources. If you believe any of these sources to be genuinely reliable, take your queries and the context to the WP:RSN and ping me from there. We'll see how the community responds to these as RS. I am asking that you self-revert until you've established these sources to be reliable. As for the rest of the article, I haven't had time to check the sources but have no doubt that there are plenty of other instances of content that should be pulled from the list. Please don't pose "how come?" questions when I haven't examined the article's sources for ages, but the talk page has drawn my attention to the fact that the article really needs a serious looking over and there's at least one example of badly sourced information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the twitter account used by "Business Insider Australia" does not appear on the UK Foreign Commonwealth Office. I been able to establish it as being as Adam Thomson's "official" twitter account in representing his personal views as a permanent representative to NATO, but not as being recognised as voicing the opinion of the UK Foreign Office. Again, if this information is deemed valid, I have no doubt that you should be able to pick up on finding quality RS discussing his post for cross-referencing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem here is that the advocates behind this false information (at this time it appears to be false) is that they cannot even recognize its fringe background. There's evidence that Russia supplies rebels, but every claim of a Russian-exclusive tank or vehicle is backed by multiple high quality sources. In this situation, you have a sophisticated $15 million air defense system that is only in use by Russia. The fact that the most reliable source in discussion (Jane's International) cannot confirm these allegations, should be a red flag that this is a very alarming claim due to its phantom like status at the moment. On a side note, has Kiev given any comment on the Pantsir-S1? Khazar (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters article [8] makes it seem like The Foreign Office did indeed publish the infographic, and then British ambassador to NATO went on to post it to twitter. J.K Nakkila (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The clue is in the "seems like" - whether they did or didn't is not at issue. Adrian Croft, the journalist who wrote the piece, is merely reiterating bits and pieces of information without committing himself to the veracity of the claim. I've got this on Google alert and there's been virtually no news discussion since the claim, and anything that has cropped up has been in a couple of personal op-ed pieces. No one has actually dared to step over the line of referencing Adam Thomson's tweet, and no government agencies, NGOs, or any other official source has commented further on the claim. Would a genuinely confirmed report of this calibre be accidentally overlooked in such a high stakes political situation as this? Sorry, but it's all quiet on the Eastern front on this story, therefore it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, I don't know why you and Khazar think that this sighting is any different than, for example, sighting of BTR-82AM. Yes, Pantsir-S1 is more sophisticated and expensive, but what do journalists and politicians know about the Russian equipment price? And how does equipment price influence approach to Wikipedia coverage?
In both cases (of BTR-82AM and Pantsir-S1) the equipment in question was never exported to Ukraine. In both cases the sighting was verified by ARES. And in both cases Western media has shown little interest in the stories.
What I'm saying is that your logic "it's not covered by mass media so it's not for Wikipedia" might be wrong. --Amakuha (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really our job to determine wether the reporter is right or wrong on factual basis. Your analysis on discussion surrounding the story might aswell be true (I didn't dwell into it) but that comes to the first point. I'm still for including it but I guess at this point, we'd need more opinions from outside the talk page, no? J.K Nakkila (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially this is at the heart of the matter, J.K Nakkila (and Amakuha). We have to be extremely cautious when it comes to WP:RECENTISM. Whether it's true or not, we have to be well covered by RS to include content. Conversely, even if we don't believe content to be true, but it's reported in multiple RS, it is included.
To be honest, I've started researching various sources being used for this article, and am certain that a few of them do not meet the criteria (such as Lost Armour which appears to be another publicly sourced site with no form of fact checking to verify reports). I'm seeing reasons to remove a lot of the content. The principle of the Wikipedia project is to ensure that it meets encyclopaedic standards. As editors, it's up to us to make certain that the content in our articles stands up to scrutiny. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is definetly need for some content removal, there are even just photographs used as a source there. J.K Nakkila (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I've spent hours tracking down where the photos are from. A few actually come from sources that are borderline RS. I don't want to simply dismiss good faith additions because the contributors didn't understand how to cite a source properly. It's time consuming, but I'll get there eventually. Those photos aren't really contentious so I'm not going to dedicate days of work when I'm working on a number of other articles. Instead, I'm doing it a bit at a time. I have a feeling that, at the end of the process, we won't have very much left that can be considered reliably sourced (or even WP:BIASED RS that can be used with WP:INLINE attribution).
Never mind. We'll get there in the end. That's the nature of the Wikipedia project. At some point later in time there may be scholarly research with substantiated facts. Meanwhile, we'll just plod on doing the best we can. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was already made clear that this content violates WP:FRINGE. If I see any more fo your bad faith edits, the administrators will hear about this. Khazar (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar, time goes on, and new secondary sources start to appear. This time a "highly touted" report[9][10][11][12] from the Atlantic Council includes a claim that Pantsir-S1 was seen in Ukraine along with Grad-K and T-72B3. The report is this: Czuperski, Maksymilian; Herbst, John; Higgins, Eliot; Polyakova, Alina; Wilson, Damon (2015-05-27). Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine. Atlantic Council. ISBN 978-1-61977-996-9.. And I see absolutely no need to delete it from the article even if you still want to delete Pantsir-S1 from the list. --Amakuha (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This still doesn't change the fact that the mainstream media has not covered this issue at all. Remember the requirments for a WP:FRINGE topic such as this, multiple reputable sources. You have virtually none. Until them, the Pantsir-S1 is not allowed to be mentioned, end of. Khazar (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Amakuha is misunderstanding that the use of a source in a particular context (i.e., the Atlantic Council report has been used, alongside other RS, to support the fact of Russian weapons being used in the conflict) does not automatically mean that the source is valid, or desirable, for other articles: expressly this article. The contexts in which it has been used are far more generalised, the equipment is certainly not enumerated and, ultimately, the source could be removed without its impacting on the content as it is already substantiated by other verifiable, reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, the Atlantic Council report was added as it has some new sources and information. For example, it contains a link to a new video with three T-72B3 tanks together in the separatists' hands. Also it names 2B26 battle machines ("Grad" on KamAZ-5350 chassis) as Grad-K, which is a new name not mentioned in other sources. --Amakuha (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar, how is at least three sources are not multiple: report by Atlantic Council, report by ARES, analysis by Eliot Higgins, and even mass media like Radio Free Europe? All of them mention Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine. --Amakuha (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've already covered Bellingcat and LostArmour. That leaves 2 sources that would qualify as RS (although I'd be predisposed to treating them as ostensibly biased, therefore in need of inline attribution as a precaution). Nevertheless, I'm reticent about including such big claims on this basis. Perhaps this should go to the WP:NPOVN? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention LostArmour. Currently Pantsir-S1 in Ukraine was reported by these sources:
All of these are reliable independent secondary sources (from three continents and one island). I think, these are enough to at least mention that various independent experts believe that Pantsir-S1 was seen in Ukraine.
Additionally Pantsir-S1's usage in Ukraine was mentioned in these mass media sources:
More than enough and "mainstream" enough. So I don't see any reason why it should be considered a "fringe theory". --Amakuha (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Amakuha, I was confusing ARES with LostArmour (although I don't consider it to be any more RS that Bellingcat or LostArmour). Nevertheless, given the mainstream sources reporting on the presence of Pantsir-S1's, I'd have to agree with you that it does qualify for inclusion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all secondary sources. If a secondary source cites an unreliable primary source, it becomes unreliable in that context. Khazar (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we use reliable secondary sources, the onus would be on demonstrating that the unrelated primary sources (there are 3 in Amakuha's list) are unreliable. Again, if there are doubts, I think the WP:NPOVN should be used. While I always prefer to err on the side of caution, and I'm bearing in mind that these are recently released 'reports' being discussed in the articles, at this point in time, my !vote would have to be for inclusion. For the record, however, I maintain that I'm reluctant simply because there hasn't been much time for further research and potential refutation by experts outside of think tanks to properly weigh in on what the primary sources are saying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar, there is no rule that "if a [reliable] secondary source cites an unreliable primary source, it becomes unreliable". Or maybe you can point me to such rule? It's an absurd. What you are saying is that any newspaper publication is a priori unreliable if it cites a witness (unreliable primary source).
The thing is, Wikipedia community cannot use primary sources, because we can't judge on their reliability. That's why we needed to wait while experts assess the evidence and publish their conclusions in secondary sources. Well, that's what we got. --Amakuha (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AS Val filmed in Luhansk: The other weapons ?[edit]

The article is citing censor.net which has 42 seconds of footage of a group 8 men in uniforms walking in a street with civilians, reportedly in Luhansk.

The article reports that the uniformed men are armed with AS Val.

And sure enough, five of them (no. 1 + 2 and 6 + 7 + 8) each have an AS Val slung over their shoulder, the stock folded in, a magazine inserted and no scope mounted.

Two others (3 + 4) appear to be lighting cigarettes without visible weapons. None of the eight carry belt-kits or vests, none of them have visible insignia.

The person appearing fifth (wearing snow-white gloves) also has a rifle slung over the shoulder. That rifle has a magazine inserted + a scope (visible at 31s+34s), a long, non-suppressed barrel and muzzle brake (like that of an SVD) (visible at 23s), the forward attachment point of the sling located like on a SVD (visible at 30s) and a rectangular skeleton stock (visible at 34s). Is this an SVD ? If not, then what? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kord used by NAF[edit]

https://pp.vk.me/c625724/v625724290/358aa/_1Lng03SCc4.jpg

207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
at 3:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7bvEE9dbr4w 207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that it's a WP:PRIMARY source. We need a secondary source to verify the identification of a Kord machine gun. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors can identify weapons (or anything else) because that is understood to be original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even more important than the identification of the weapon is a reliable source regarding the user. While a reliable source might easily determine the type of weapon from the footage alone, that is not the same as that weapon being used by some specific entity against some other specific entity. As for the linked youtube channel, it is actively soliciting financial support for the separatists and is thus hardly a reliable source. Lklundin (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. https://en.informnapalm.org/novorossia-exposes-russia-russian-pecheneg-machine-gun-kord-machine-gun-and-command-vehicle/
Happy now? 216.165.210.160 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Sorry... I wish I could be, but there's nothing to indicate that InFormNapalm is reliable. I'd possibly be predisposed to accepting it as a WP:BIASED source, but that would be dependent on whether or not other Wikipedians would be prepared to do so. I don't WP:OWN this article, therefore I can't make executive decisions as to whether or not it's acceptable. If other editors were prepared to engage here, it would be a different matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aistenok counter battery radar[edit]

https://twitter.com/onlinemagazin/status/556034738247720960

207.35.219.34 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VKS sniper rifle used by NAF[edit]

http://i.imgur.com/UJw1raV.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Jy8diCL.jpg

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources (2)[edit]

This article is still rife with references from unreliable sources (self-published, etc.). I'm not even going to bother mentioning that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource, not "The Boy's Own Paper" for rip-snorting tales of daring-do. Please find WP:RS for all of the equipment listed or I will seriously clear away anything and everything that isn't reliably sourced. Note that LostArmour, "The Huffington Post" on its own, home videos uploaded to YouTube, tweets from someone who has an opinion, etc. are not RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. There are enough of third-party reliable sources. Most of the information for equipment has good references.
I also think that quantities should be deleted completely. There are no reliable official statements for quantities of hardware, given that DPR/LPR constantly try to conceive that they even posses some types of equipment (like Russian "Tigrs"). Also the equipment is constantly being destroyed. So what's the use of that column? --Amakuha (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that so many of these sources are Ukrainian. That really undermines their credibility. If we could get sources from unbiased countries (Xinhua, Al Jazeera, et al) that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.103.136 (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AS Val and VSS Vintores used by Alpha Group of SBU[edit]

The following source is used as a reference, that Russian guns AS Val and VSS Vintorez are used in Ukraine:

But the source doesn't say this explicitly. It just has pictures of some men without insignia (supposedly Ukrainian special forces) with something similar to AS Val and VSS Vintorez. It doesn't say:

  • which unit is that;
  • which gun specifically;
  • whether this gun was used throughout Ukraine, rather than just used for a photo.

Another source is this, but it's unreliable (forum). With photos of unidentified men again. --Amakuha (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted for now. --Amakuha (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. All content for this article, as is the case with any Wikipedia article, must be reliably sourced. No reliable third party source: no content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camouflage[edit]

I deleted the section about camouflage. I checked 5 random links, and all of them are original research. Sometimes it's just a photo. None of the links seems to identify and analyse camouflage types of the insurgents. --Amakuha (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, agreed. Feel free to get rid of anything that isn't properly sourced. The list was barraged by all sorts of interested contributors when it was created based on anything they'd seen posted on VK and their own personal analysis. Now that the POV pushing has died down and interest has ebbed, it's time to clean up. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of equipment used by separatist forces of the war in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of equipment used by separatist forces of the war in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of equipment used by separatist forces of the war in Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captured Vehicles[edit]

Why are vehicles that were confirmed to be captured by the Russian Armed Forces in 2022 automatically added to the equipment totals? Many of those captured have not been confirmed to be pressed into service in the LPR/DPR, so those total numbers of vehicles in service are made up. 2600:1000:B062:3607:38E6:454:47CF:5988 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm cleaning up the vehicles section (as well a general cleanup in the entire article). Mr. Komori (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_equipment_used_by_Russian_people%27s_militias_in_Ukraine&oldid=1208233489"